Freedom of Press and Civil Society

A free press and an active civil society are vital components of democratic ecosystems. They serve as watchdogs, forums for civic dialogue, and channels through which citizens can express dissent without resorting to violence. Independent media can expose corruption, highlight policy failures, and amplify marginalized voices, contributing to greater accountability and transparency in governance. Likewise, civil society organizations (CSOs) - such as Transparency International, which combats global corruption, or Legal Resources Centre in South Africa, which provides pro bono legal assistance to marginalized groups - can mobilize communities, monitor elections, and advocate for reforms. When these freedoms are protected, elections are more likely to be informed, participatory, and credible - thereby reducing the allure of extremist solutions. However, when governments suppress the press or restrict civil society, misinformation proliferates, grievances go unaddressed, and political polarization deepens. Extremist actors often flourish in such vacuums, filling the gap left by weakened democratic institutions. Thus, the health of press freedom and civil society directly influences whether elections foster democratic resilience or deepen political fragmentation and extremism.

To measure these dimensions internationally, the V-Dem project offers a robust and methodologically transparent assessment. Hosted by the University of Gothenburg and drawing on expert surveys from thousands of country specialists, V-Dem compiles indices that reflect the health of media freedom, civil society participation, and other democratic attributes. Two indices are especially relevant here: the “Freedom of Expression and Alternative Sources of Information” index and the “Civil Society Participation” index. These indicators assess not only formal rights, such as legal protections for journalists or NGOs, but also de facto conditions - including media independence, harassment levels, access to diverse viewpoints, and the ability of civil organizations to operate without state interference.

According to V-Dem data (2023), the United States presents a mixed picture. On the “Freedom of Expression and Alternative Sources” index, the U.S. scored 0.77 on a scale from 0 (least free) to 1 (most free), indicating relatively strong legal protections but increasing concern over media polarization, economic pressures on journalism, and the rise of disinformation. The U.S. fared better in the “Civil Society Participation” index, scoring 0.85, reflecting the country’s long tradition of robust civic engagement and a high density of NGOs, community organizations, and advocacy movements. However, the V-Dem data also flag signs of deterioration over the past decade - particularly a rise in political polarization and state-level legal efforts to restrict protest rights and civil society activity. Early data from 2025 suggest these trends have accelerated under the current administration, with watchdog groups like CIVICUS and Freedom House noting increased constraints on media independence and civic organizing.

In terms of press freedom, the U.S. benefits from First Amendment protections, which prohibit censorship and protect journalists from legal reprisals. Nevertheless, these formal protections coexist with mounting challenges. Economic consolidation in media markets has diminished local journalism, while partisan outlets and algorithmic amplification on social media have deepened echo chambers and fueled disinformation. The phenomenon of “news deserts” - regions with little to no local reporting - further undermines informed civic participation. Additionally, the harassment of journalists - especially those covering protests or political scandals - has increased, with several high-profile arrests or attacks during demonstrations drawing concern from watchdog groups like Reporters Without Borders.

Civil society in the U.S. remains vibrant but unevenly empowered. Movements such as Black Lives Matter and March for Our Lives demonstrate the continued ability of grassroots activism to shape national debates. However, recent years have seen rising tensions between protestors and state authorities. Laws in states like Florida and Oklahoma have expanded penalties for participating in protests deemed “disruptive,” raising concerns about chilling effects on free assembly. Furthermore, political polarization has led to differential treatment of civil society groups, with some organizations labeled as “extremist” or “un-American” depending on the governing party. These dynamics suggest that while civil society remains a potent force, its capacity to serve as a democratic stabilizer is increasingly contested.

Comparative Case Studies of Freedom of Press and Civil Society

In contrast, Germany performs strongly on both V-Dem indices, scoring 0.87 for press freedom and 0.90 for civil society participation. German media is governed by stringent public broadcasting standards, diverse ownership, and clear regulations on political advertising and campaign coverage. The country's Press Council enforces ethical journalism, and constitutional protections for both media and CSOs are broadly respected. Importantly, Germany also enforces legislation such as the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) to curb hate speech and misinformation on social media platforms, without significantly undermining press independence. Civil society in Germany benefits from active government cooperation and funding, as well as a strong legal framework that protects NGOs, unions, and advocacy groups. These conditions enable citizens to voice dissent, debate policy, and participate meaningfully in democratic life - factors that have helped contain the appeal of extremist ideologies.

Tunisia, though facing significant democratic backsliding in recent years, had demonstrated important gains in this domain during the post-2011 transition period. From 2011 to around 2019, Tunisia’s V-Dem score for press freedom rose to 0.62 and civil society participation to 0.68 - remarkable improvements in a region often characterized by state control. Independent outlets flourished, and watchdog NGOs like Al Bawsala played a crucial role in monitoring government transparency. However, since President Kais Saied’s consolidation of power in 2021, these gains have been under threat. Critics note increased pressure on journalists and the use of military courts to try civilians, including civil society leaders. Still, Tunisia’s prior experience highlights the positive impact of empowering non-state actors to counterbalance political forces and channel public concerns away from violence.

By contrast, Egypt and Turkey illustrate how undermining press and civil society freedom can accelerate extremism and authoritarianism. Egypt scores just 0.19 in press freedom and 0.23 in civil society participation - among the lowest globally. Independent journalism is virtually nonexistent, with major outlets controlled by the state or allied business entities. NGOs operate under restrictive laws, and dozens of civil society activists remain imprisoned or harassed. In Turkey, President Erdoğan’s government has systematically eroded media independence, jailing journalists, shuttering opposition outlets, and using “insulting the president” laws to stifle dissent. Civil society, once a vibrant force in the early 2000s, has also been constricted through arrests, surveillance, and administrative burdens on NGOs. In both countries, the lack of legitimate outlets for dissent has driven opposition either into exile, into apathy, or into radical, sometimes militant, alternatives.

These comparisons yield clear insights for the United States. Germany and (to some extent) Tunisia demonstrate how robust protections for media and civil society contribute to democratic legitimacy and reduce the allure of extremist alternatives.

Strong civil organizations and independent journalism not only inform and engage citizens but also serve as pressure valves for discontent, channeling opposition into constructive forms. The U.S. can take inspiration from Germany’s effective media regulation and institutional support for civil society - without infringing on constitutional freedoms. Simultaneously, Egypt and Turkey highlight the dangers of undermining these freedoms: when citizens cannot trust information or organize peacefully, democratic channels collapse, and extremism can thrive.

To enhance its democratic resilience, the United States should invest in revitalizing local journalism, limiting excessive media consolidation by enforcing ownership caps and promoting diversity of outlets, and countering disinformation through public education and platform accountability. Protecting the rights of protestors and removing barriers to NGO operations - especially at the state level - are also critical. Ultimately, a well-informed and civically engaged public is the strongest antidote to political extremism, and that foundation rests on the twin pillars of press freedom and civil society.